AgTech says it filed lease appeal and seeks settlement conference

AgTech LLC says it filed an administrative appeal October 1 challenging Arizona’s September action against five agricultural leases in Yuma County, and requested an informal settlement conference with the State Land Department.

The company’s October announcement, published with KYMA’s October 2 report, identifies a filing date and a request for settlement talks. That is a development beyond the September 24 attorney letter, which described an appeal as forthcoming. YumaInformed has not obtained the appeal itself, an agency receipt, a case number or an order changing the lease decision.

The distinction matters: the public document labeled “AgTech Notice of Appeal FINAL” is a two-page press release with a media contact and company description. It is not a docketed notice of appeal. KYMA’s report attributes the filing claim to the company; KJZZ reported the appeal October 5, but its article does not link the pleading or identify a case number.

What AgTech is asking the agency to reconsider

AgTech says Gallagher & Kennedy filed the challenge to the September 10 decision and the denial of its claimed preferred renewal rights. It seeks compliance with notice-and-cure procedures and the terms of the leases, along with an informal settlement conference. The exact requested relief and scope of the reported appeal remain unverified without the pleading.

KJZZ reports that AgTech disputes the use of an average biosolids loading rate, arguing that the leases contain no such limit and that the state failed to follow the process for imposing a new requirement. Those are the company’s legal arguments, not an agency or court finding.

The earlier September 24 letter invokes a right to correct alleged defaults and says a September 17 notice arrived after the September 10 action. YumaInformed’s existing coverage explains that letter’s claims and limitations. The new announcement supplies a reported appeal date, but does not independently establish that the required notices were missing or that the state acted unlawfully.

The state’s position and the unresolved lease status

The Governor’s September 10 announcement describes one lease found in default and four leases the department chose not to renew. It says an inspection found noncompliance with the leases and that continued leasing was not in the State Land Trust’s best interest. Its public reasons include the scale of biosolids operations and residents’ complaints about flies, odors and dust.

Cancellation for default and refusal to renew are distinct actions. A.R.S. § 37-289 sets notice, cure and appeal procedures for cancellation. A.R.S. § 37-291 provides a preferred renewal right subject to exceptions, including substantial noncompliance and the trust’s best interest. Resolving which provisions apply to each lease requires the actual instruments, decision letters and appeal record.

KAWC’s October 1 report identifies December 11 as the state’s lease-expiration date, followed by 90 days to remove physical property. That is the reported state timetable. YumaInformed has not verified a stay, suspension, settlement or revised deadline, and cannot establish the current legal effect of the claimed appeal on occupancy or renewal rights.

The department’s October 8 Board of Appeals agenda lists no appeals for that day and does not identify an AgTech hearing. An Office of Administrative Hearings portal search found no AgTech matter. Neither check proves that an appeal was not received by the department or that no proceeding exists elsewhere. No hearing or settlement-conference date was independently established.

Under A.R.S. § 41-1092.06, an agency generally must hold a requested informal settlement conference within 15 days after receiving the written request. Without a verified receipt date and applicable case record, October 1 cannot be used to calculate a confirmed conference deadline.

What the inspection record actually establishes

AgTech cites an April inspection in support of its compliance position. The primary ADEQ surface-water inspection report, issued April 16 after an April 9 visit, recorded no alleged deficiencies and stated that no ADEQ action would result from that inspection. State Land Department representatives participated.

The same report recommends improved recordkeeping and use of a new injector to reduce material discharged onto the ground surface. Its findings describe a particular inspection; they are not a blanket clearance of every field or every period, and do not decide compliance with the agricultural leases. No new environmental enforcement order or permit change was established in this review.

Why Yuma’s disposal arrangements matter

The April report also records an inspector observing a City of Yuma pumper truck delivering liquid biosolids at field DU-8. That documents a City delivery at that time and location, not where all City material goes today or which affected lease covers that field.

The City Council separately approved an AgTech biosolids removal and disposal award September 2 with an estimated annual expenditure of $940,000. A change in access to receiving land could require different disposal arrangements, but the appeal announcement does not establish contract cancellation, an actual replacement cost or a ratepayer increase.

The executed agreement, current load tickets, receiving-site authorizations and written alternative-disposal quotes would establish those consequences. YumaInformed’s contract and cost investigation explains why an award estimate is not an expenditure ledger or a verified replacement-cost forecast.

The next records to obtain

The priority documents are the actual appeal and proof of receipt; the five lease instruments and September notices; any stay, scheduling or settlement orders; and current ADEQ permit and enforcement records. Those would establish whether the appeal was accepted, which agency action is under review, and whether the state’s timetable changed.

This administrative dispute is separate from AgTech’s private civil litigation, covered in The AgTech Lawsuit: What Is Publicly Documented. Filing an administrative challenge does not establish the outcome of that lawsuit. This report reflects documents and reporting reviewed through October 8, 2026.